Coursey v. Beto, 71-2850 Summary Calendar.

• Decision Date: 14 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-2850 Summary Calendar.,71-2850 Summary Calendar.
• Citation: 455 F.2d 474
• Parties: William Louis COURSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

455 F.2d 474 (1972)

William Louis COURSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 71-2850 Summary Calendar.^*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 14, 1972.

William L. Coursey, pro se.

Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Tex., Gilbert J. Pena, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, William Louis Coursey, a prisoner of the State of Texas, appeals from the district court's denial of his application for habeas corpus. We affirm.

On the morning of May 4, 1964, a partner of the Brantley-Wyatt Motor Company in Cleburne, Texas, opened the company safe and discovered that it had been cut into by an acetylene torch, but no money had been taken. Further investigation showed that entry into the building had been made through a skylight on the top of the building. Believing that the burglars would return, the Cleburne police decided to "stake out" the building the night after the burglary. Around midnight they apprehended Coursey and a companion on the roof of the building. Coursey was then arrested and taken to the police station, where he gave a written confession to the crime. At his trial on July 14, 1964, the confession was admitted in evidence without objection. Coursey now seeks to have his conviction set aside on grounds that the confession was inadmissible and obtained in violation of Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and that his court-appointed trial counsel rendered ineffective representation by failing to object to the admission of the inculpatory statement.

In denying Coursey's petition for habeas corpus, the district court found that the appellant had been afforded a full and fair hearing during Texas post-conviction proceedings on these issues, and that the state court's conclusion that he was not entitled to relief was fully supported by the transcript of the hearing. At the evidentiary hearing in state court Coursey was represented by privately-retained counsel. His own testimony was the only evidence offered in support of his contention that the confession was obtained by physically coercive tactics after he had requested and had been denied his right to have an attorney present. To refute this allegation the state called four police officers as...